4 ms·

Not easily. Wisconsin defines a deadly weapon (actually they use the term 'dangerous weapon') as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed

Not easily. Wisconsin defines a deadly weapon (actually they use the term 'dangerous weapon') as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon [...] or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm." You might say that the skateboard was 'likely to produce great bodily harm in the manner it was used', which I think is plausible, although clearly Huber was not skilled in using his skateboard in this way. I would point out though that it would be *completely wrong* to say that Huber was 'armed' because he was carrying a skateboard. Although he did hit Rittenhouse with it, it doesn't seem as he was carrying the skateboard as a weapon, it was just an opportunistic usage.

Akronymus 5y ago
The moment it started being used as a weapon, it became one, afaict. So, just carrying it isn't making it a weapon, but swinging it, is.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  That's a fair point. So Huber was not carrying a weapon up until after Rittenhouse had already killed Rosebaum.
  - Akronymus 5y ago
    That would certainly be a reasonable interpretation. But in the moment he got shot himself, he already used a weapon on rittenhouse.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      I would agree that Rittenhouse would be justified to believe that, yes. Although I would say that the way Huber hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard doesn't really seem as though it's intended to kill or seriously injure, it seems more like he's using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him. We'll never know, unfortunately.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        “Assault rifle” lol.
        thatguy0900 5y ago
        "fully semi-automatic military style weapon"
      - yes_really 5y ago
        He tried to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard. How does that not seem as "intended to kill or seriously injure"? I don't think you are arguing in good faith.
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        I think I’ve put quite a lot of time and effort into responding in good faith to everyone who has entered into discussion with me, so I find your comment a bit rude to be honest. With regards to your specific point, my very next phrase explains what I see in the video instead of an intention to kill or seriously injure. You might disagree, which is your right, but please don’t accuse me of not arguing in good faith.
        yes_really 5y ago
        He attacked Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse was fallen on the ground surrounded by multiple people running after him and attacking him. The situation was extremely violent: it was during a violent riot that tried to blow up a gas station. At least one of the people attacking him was armed with a handgun and multiple people were armed with baseball bats. At least one of the attackers was a convicted child molester. It's pretty clear the attacker was part of the attempted beating of Rittenhouse. You wrote it seems like he was just "using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him" to justify the attacker's actions, but you failed to mention the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse. Everyone can see high quality video footage at 0:15 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg

Akronymus 5y ago

The moment it started being used as a weapon, it became one, afaict. So, just carrying it isn't making it a weapon, but swinging it, is.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
That's a fair point. So Huber was not carrying a weapon up until after Rittenhouse had already killed Rosebaum.
- Akronymus 5y ago
  That would certainly be a reasonable interpretation. But in the moment he got shot himself, he already used a weapon on rittenhouse.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    I would agree that Rittenhouse would be justified to believe that, yes. Although I would say that the way Huber hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard doesn't really seem as though it's intended to kill or seriously injure, it seems more like he's using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him. We'll never know, unfortunately.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      “Assault rifle” lol.
      - thatguy0900 5y ago
        "fully semi-automatic military style weapon"
    - yes_really 5y ago
      He tried to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard. How does that not seem as "intended to kill or seriously injure"? I don't think you are arguing in good faith.
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        I think I’ve put quite a lot of time and effort into responding in good faith to everyone who has entered into discussion with me, so I find your comment a bit rude to be honest. With regards to your specific point, my very next phrase explains what I see in the video instead of an intention to kill or seriously injure. You might disagree, which is your right, but please don’t accuse me of not arguing in good faith.
        yes_really 5y ago
        He attacked Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse was fallen on the ground surrounded by multiple people running after him and attacking him. The situation was extremely violent: it was during a violent riot that tried to blow up a gas station. At least one of the people attacking him was armed with a handgun and multiple people were armed with baseball bats. At least one of the attackers was a convicted child molester. It's pretty clear the attacker was part of the attempted beating of Rittenhouse. You wrote it seems like he was just "using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him" to justify the attacker's actions, but you failed to mention the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse. Everyone can see high quality video footage at 0:15 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg